Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 25



Template:RegionalAccreditors

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Postsecondary Institutional Accreditors in the United States. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC) This is a defunct categorization; the U.S. Department of Education has eliminated the distinction between "regional" and "national" accreditors and now refers to them only as "institutional" accreditors. (A case could be made for creating a new "institutional accreditors" template and redirecting this template to it.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RegionalAccreditors
 * Conditional Support: Only if a new institutional accreditors template with redirect created. These are important organizations to the U.S. educational system and I think that warrants a new navbox. Given the growing trend in corporate HR departments to re-evaluate the true necessity of four-year degrees, accreditation is part of the story of how such degrees are supposedly quality assured, so there is a probably a need for greater common knowledge about these types of organizations and which ones are considered legitimate. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this: Template:Postsecondary Institutional Accreditors in the United States? ElKevbo (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Don't love all the red-links but, hey, that's our battle as Wikipedians. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:LA Tech Sports Network

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Template is no longer about a notable topic as the parent article was recently deleted: Articles for deletion/Louisiana Tech Sports Network Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * LA Tech Sports Network


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:K.S.V. Roeselare squad

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Club defaulted in 2020 and has no players anymore, see K.S.V. Roeselare. Pelotastalk&#124; contribs 15:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * K.S.V. Roeselare squad


 * Delete Club folded. No need to keep it anymore. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete club is defunct, so no need for 'current squad' template (as there is not one). GiantSnowman 18:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Handball at the 2007 All-Africa Games

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Handball at the 2007 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 2003 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 1999 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 1995 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 1991 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 1987 All-Africa Games
 * Handball at the 1978 All-Africa Games

Redundant by Template:Handball at the African Games SFB 16:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all No need for multiple templates for the same subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Editnotices/Page/IA

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC) This template is doubly wrong. (1) Unlinked and redlinked entries are permitted on DAB pages per WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRED. (2) References are not permitted on DAB pages per WP:DABREF. For analogous cases, see Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 16 and Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 28, both of which resulted in deletion.
 * Editnotices/Page/IA

Request to next passing admin - please add to this template, which I am unable to do. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is an unnecessary editnotice (was added after someone added a non-notable corporation to the dabpage, but that doesn't need an editnotice). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many copies of this editnotice have been placed on other articles: should these copies be deleted as well? Jarble (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They should be deleted. From my count, there are 570 of them. I've noticed they are not even used on the articles they were created for. Don't understand why that was the case. Thank you for bringing that to attention. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no, of course not. It's an improper notice for a disambiguation page, not for other types of lists. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of this type of notice on list articles (from which I enthusiastically prune NN redlinks). It's only its presence on DAB pages which is a problem. Narky Blert (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Di-no source-auto

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC) This template no longer works properly, nor does it have any use. This is because db-f4 is no longer an immediate speedy deletion template and redirects to the dated deletion tag instead. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Di-no source-auto


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).